#19 Highest Peak of All Time (Ewing '90 wins)

[bastillon]

drza voted for Ewing, and I changed my vote from Nash to Ewing so that Nash vote doesn't count.

UAF you bring up some good points but I wish you'd stop with this "26/16, 28/16". after all those numbers are the very reason why we're questioning his proponents. you only look at ppg/rpg instead of taking a look at the bigger picture. the most turnover prone center in history, horrible passer, lousy defensive ratings in Houston (KG's Wolves were at least average, Moses teams were Raps-like), doesn't create shots for himself, Philly didn't improve much after his addition etc etc after yo get past the 28/16 there's not much to rely on if you're a fan of Moses.

[Dr Positivity]

Don't know whether to count drza or not. The closest thing the came to a vote was putting a 1990 Patrick Ewing at the top of a post, but I'm pretty sure he just meant it as a discussion header instead of a vote

68 West (4) – Doctor MJ, therealbig3, ardee, ElGee
90 Ewing (4) – Dr Positivity, Lightning25, DavidStern, bastillion
83 Moses (3) – PTB Fan, JordansBulls, SDChargers#1
03 Tmac (1) – C-iz me

kasino voted but isn't in the panel, if he's still reading this thread, say you want in and Doctor MJ will handle it from there

[An Unbiased Fan]

drza voted for Ewing, and I changed my vote from Nash to Ewing so that Nash vote doesn't count.

UAF you bring up some good points but I wish you'd stop with this "26/16, 28/16". after all those numbers are the very reason why we're questioning his proponents. you only look at ppg/rpg instead of taking a look at the bigger picture. the most turnover prone center in history, horrible passer, lousy defensive ratings in Houston (KG's Wolves were at least average, Moses teams were Raps-like), doesn't create shots for himself, Philly didn't improve much after his addition etc etc after yo get past the 28/16 there's not much to rely on if you're a fan of Moses.

I just posted a long post showing how Philly had a big improvement with Moses, and how Houston had a massive dropoff.

You bring up team DRtg, yet....1990 Ewing's Knicks were just the #13 team, and that's with Oakley next to him in the frontcourt. Philly was #5 with Moses.

I bring up Mose's 16 rpg, because it took Philly from a bad rebounding team to the best. Ewing wasn't even the best rebounder on his team. Philly's rebounding was the major reasons for their success that year. It spurred their fastbreaks and aggressive style.

Mose's TOV% in 1983 was 13.8%, while Ewing's in 1990 was 12.4, which is hardly a diference. In fact, Moses was a career 14.1% in the NBA, and Ewing was a career 13.6%.

Moses was All-NBA/All-D 1st, MVP, FMVP. Ewing was All-NBA 1st, but wasn't recognized for anything else.

We have one guy who was clearly the best in 1983 to a guy who was borderline Top 5 in 1990.

[therealbig3]

I don't personally see Ewing's peak this high, and I do have Robinson, Malone, and Barkley ahead of him, but I still have him as a top 25 peak, so it's not a big deal to me if he goes now. I can definitely be convinced. I don't know how much we can quantify Ewing's defense, but looking at him offensively in 90:

Per 75 possessions:

27.2 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 2.1 apg, 3.2 TOpg, 59.9% TS (+6.2%), 115 ORating

NY's offense: +1.3


Playoffs, per 75 possessions (vs average of -2.4 defense):

28.2 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.0 apg, 2.6 TOpg, 57.9% TS (+4.2%), 115 ORating

NY's playoff offense: +4.6


Ewing seems very impressive at first glance, but one thing that sticks out to me: Ewing's offensive production pretty much stays the same in the regular season and playoffs, and while he leads an about average offense in the RS, he leads a very strong offense in the playoffs. I also don't really see a big improvement from the supporting cast. So what changed?

It could have been a strategic shift from focusing on defense to focusing on offense. They were an average defense (with Oakley missing 21 games) that was +5.6 in the playoffs. Their defense pretty much collapsed, and as you can see, they actually ended up as a -1.0 team in the playoffs.

They also played two teams of very different quality in the playoffs that year. The 90 Celtics were a 3.23 SRS team, and this was Larry Bird at the end of his career. The 90 Pistons were a 5.41 SRS team that had a tendency to elevate their play in the PS and would go on to win the title that year.

The Knicks against Boston that year had a 118.5 ORating (+10.9) and a 119.0 DRating (+7)...meaning they actually got outscored in this series! They had to win 3 in a row after falling 0-2 to the Celtics in the first place. So they barely squeaked by an (imo) unimpressive Boston team.

Ewing in that series averaged, per 75 possessions:

27.2 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 3.4 apg, 2.4 TOpg, 59.7% TS, 119 ORating


The Knicks in their next series against the defending and eventual champion Detroit Pistons lost by an average margin of 11.4 ppg. They had a 102.1 ORating (-1.4) and a 114.6 DRating (+4.7)...they got pretty easily beaten by the Pistons in this series, and their offense and especially defense struggled.

Ewing in that series averaged, per 75 possessions:

29.2 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.8 TOpg, 56.0% TS, 110 ORating


So although Ewing played well against Detroit, his production clearly tailed off, and both his numbers and the Knicks overall numbers in the playoffs seem to be influenced by them beating up on a mediocre Boston team. They were taken care of quite handily by Detroit, and Ewing saw his production decline.

I'm not drawing any major conclusions from this other than it's kind of in line of what I thought: Ewing isn't really in the Duncan/Hakeem class offensively or defensively, or even in Robinson's class. They were all able to lead strong offensive and defensive teams in the playoffs, without sacrificing one for the other.

Now, who were Ewing's teammates? Nothing special offensively, true, so leading a slightly above average offense does support the notion that he was a good offensive player. But he had Strickland/Cheeks and Oakley next to him, which is very good defensive support imo. Ewing was a very good defensive player, but I don't really see the evidence that he's comparable to Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, or KG on that end. KG with similar or worse support was able to lead similar or better defenses in Minnesota. Ditto with Hakeem. Robinson and Duncan usually had good defensive players next to them...but they led historic defenses as a result. The 93 and 94 Knicks, which were the historic defenses Ewing led, had arguably the GOAT defensive supporting cast (better than what Robinson or Duncan had imo), and were led by Pat Riley.

Being a very good defensive anchor and a good offensive player is not really enough to go over West (awesome offensive player with decent perimeter defense), T-Mac (awesome offensive player with decent perimeter defense), Barkley (awesome offensive player with below average defense), or K. Malone (very good offensive player with very good defense, not an anchor though), IMHO.

Basically, you can build a very strong offense around any of the other players I mentioned, at least. So you're going to be set on one side of the ball. Ewing, on the other hand, can't have a strong offense built around him, and he seems to need a lot of help defensively to lead a strong defense. You need a bit more help around him to build a comparably strong team as the other candidates, imo.

[Dr Positivity]

I think an important thing to remember about these projects is how they are viewed and used in the future. They are educational, first and foremost, and a collection of information in one organized place. But people view the project at a distance, and have their curiosity piqued by the voting.

This doesn't mean the results need to be "perfect" or even perfectly reflect the group's opinions. But MANY people will look at the validity of the project and the worth of the arguments through the prism of the voting; They go to the front page, see the results that look different or even shocking to them, think "what the heck is going on there?" in some capacity, and investigate.

eg RPOY 2008 Kevin Garnett.
eg Top 100 Bill Russell

And so on. Most people are learning, or at the least have an explanation that validates the project, because the votes that go against the status quo are the votes supported with the most discussion and analysis.

Ok, agreed so far

That's not the case in the project though. There have been spots of good discussion, but this is really the 3rd or 4th time when it feels like the inmates have taken over the asylum.

I'm going to let you off the hook and pretend that statement didn't happen. I think you understand why speaking about fellow voters in an inmate/asylum context um... may not play well.

It's OK if we vote Patrick Ewing in 9th, let alone 19th...but there should be a LOT of argumentation for that. I mean, Michael Jordan's No. 1 -- we just voted him the highest standard in basketball history -- and he had very little argumentation. Why? He's widely accepted as No. 1. He's recent, so people have seen him play. No one is going to tune in to the project to hear the same MJ analysis regurgitated, and I'm pretty sure none of us here have some sort of radical anti-MJ stance to offer (the closest thing is the popular and shallow "only worth 2 wins meme" that have been thoroughly debunked before.)

People reading this project are going to be wondering why Wilt Chamberlain is No. 4. There was an ABUNDANCE of discussion surrounding that. But...They might wonder (too high or too low) why Kareem was No. 6...and what would their answer to that be? How would they explain that to someone asking about the conclusions of this panel?? Somehow there was no Tim Duncan-Kevin Garnett discussion. Then Oscar Robertson was voted at No. 14...do you think people reading that thread will go "well wow, there were some amazing arguments there for Oscar, I totally agree with that??" (I've re-read the thread, and the Oscar arguments are "QB PG's are valuable," "Oscar had nice in/outs in Milwaukee," "Oscar 63 had a good series against Boston." Not exactly persuasive.)

What really happens is that the best posts about players are scattered about in different threads. Duncan didn't get talked about much in the thread he got voted in, KG actually dominated the discussion - mainly because Duncan was going on 5-6 threads of discussion to that point (he came up at 4/5) and KG was bringing up new arguments. The Duncan voters would've just been repeating themselves in that thread. At the end of the day, at a macro level, I don't have a problem at all with the amount of Duncan and KG posts there was, or the amount of Oscar posts, or the amount of Kareem posts. Here and there a thread might have one where one just collects the votes without great analysis, but that's probably because the points for him have long been made.

From the perspective of convenience for "future readers", sure it isn't ideal that they click on a Duncan thread and see a post full of KG and Lebron posts... But is it that big of a deal? The system isn't going to be perfect. I like to think this project is more for US than future readers, I don't know if your perspective is different, but anyways. And on that note, those future readers are going to be interested in KG and Lebron posts anyways so it's not a big deal if that's what they read in the Duncan thread. If they're extremely interested in Duncan posts the smart ones will also look at the threads from 5-8 for them, too

And now Patrick Ewing is on the verge of going 19th...when he hasn't been discussed in the project!! Fatal's posts have been great (as have drza's generally and therealbig3). But why would two brief, stylistic, non-comparitve posts take a guy no one has discussed and place him over people who have been widely considered better during and after their careers (namely Barkley and Malone)??

Well how much is needed to pass the "haven't been discussed in the project" label? drza, fatal9, bastillion have all made lengthy posts about Ewing, other voters like myself, Lightning, ardee, UAF, thizznation and Ciz-Me have at least made Ewing related posts or paragraphs, and as I wrote this therealbig 3 made a long post about him too. That's a lot of people chipping on Ewing to me.

I would say what's even more suspect is that the Ewing support doesn't seem to be coming from people who supported David Robinson 3 threads ago save for 1 voter so far...but now people seem to be saying "well, if Robinson went Ewing can't be that far off!" This reads as some sort of childish tantrum vote. "Well, if YOU GUYS want to vote in Robinson bc of x y and z then I'm just going to vote in Ewing because his x y and z aren't that different. So there!"

The other votes in the Robinson thread - C-iz Me, Lightning and therealbig voted for 09 Wade, JordansBulls for 06 Wade, since Wade is off the board those changes to Ewing aren't suspicious (not to mention Ciz is voting for Tmac this thread, therealbig for West, and JordansBulls for Moses, so Lightning is the only one of that group to go Ewing of them). My vote was 66 West, but I really wanted 2010 Wade to get in, I switched to West once the choice became 66 West vs 09 Wade vs 95 Robinson. Josephpaul voted Baylor and is now waived. PTB Fan voted Moses in both that thread and this one. So there is just about no-Robinson yes-Ewing trend here. The closest thing to an inconsistent voter is myself (preferring 66 West to 95 Robinson, but 90 Ewing to 66 West). Except 66 West ISN'T in contention, 68 West is, and I might be more inclined to vote 66 West in this spot if he had a chance - Plus I would lean towards voting 90 Ewing over 95 Robinson anyways with the way the former stepped it up in the postseason

Also if you read this thread, the people voting Ewing are NOT mentioning Robinson as their reason why. Like at all. Robinson got brought up by the people who aren't voting for Ewing. Also, Tmac-Kobe is as strong a "Well if Kobe got in ages ago..." case as Robinson-Ewing, but that similarity isn't helping Tmac whatsoever. Same goes for Oscar v West. Two players always grouped together are about to have a 14 vs 20 or higher gap, and nobody's letting it affect their votes. Early in the project Hakeem went 5 on the basis on being a two way impact player, then we voted in Kareem, Magic, Bird in before getting around to Duncan, Hakeem's closest similarity. I see little evidence that "this guy just got in so a similar player has to" is having an impact.

Not to mention, most importantly, it lacks any useful information to the outside world. I think we all need to be better about this, especially being friendlier, but we should also keep in mind WHY this project would be worthwhile to others.

According to who? I actually think this thread has been EXCELLENT. Lacks "any" useful information? Speak for yourself.

[drza]

Re: Ewing vs Robinson

I keep reading posters claim that folks are voting for Ewing because they think he shouldn't be far from Robinson. For me, you're coming at it from exactly the wrong direction. It's not that I think Ewing has to be near Robinson...it's that Ewing impresses me for the same reasons that Robinson did. That's not the same thing at all.

In fact, if you go back through my posts and votes in this project, I think you'll find a pretty common theme: dominant bigs have been much more impressive to me than their wing counterparts. When I have voted for a perimeter player it has tended to be the do-everything-over-sized types (e.g. Magic, Oscar) that end up having some big man benefits (eg rebounds) in addition to awesome floor generalship. I'm just not as impressed with the perimeter players, even the savant scorers, as I am with the bigs that can influence the game so strongly on both sides of the ball and the boards.

Re: West

Through this project and the RPoY projects, I frankly haven't been impressed with West nor with the arguments made for him relative to the expectation that he must be voted in by now. It seems almost as if he is running as an incumbent...as though it's just self-evident that he should be considered the best. And I just don't see it. By far the most impressive evidence for him has been the in/out data that ElGee has compiled, as it indicates that clearly he had a huge impact. However, just as has been argued when looking at the +.- data, I find myself putting into context WHY was his impact so great?

And it sure seems to me, as I outlined in the Dirk vs West post a thread or two back, that the biggest reason for West's big impact was that he was a modern-day high efficiency floor spacer at a time when the league wasn't prepared for that. He was an intelligent lead guard that could run a great offensive in a system where he wasn't called upon to be the full-time ringleader, but I've seen no evidence that he could ever BE such a full-time ringleader. As such, I don't see him as the type of Magic/Oscar/Nash explosive offense types. West had a reputation for defense, but any further analysis doesn't seem to support it (the in/outs, the trend of offensive superstar wings on defense, the numbers of his star opponents in big playoff games). No, the main strength of West's impact, as far as I can tell, is his high efficiency scoring with his excellent jumper and ability to get to the rim. Which is great.

But I ask myself...why would I vote West over Nash? In '68 West's ppg average was 21.7% of the Lakers' scoring average...in 2006 Nash's ppg were a bit more than 19% of what the Suns averaged. We can't 1-to-1 relate scoring from different eras, but if Nash has shown he can score a similar slice of the pie for his team as West...and Nash has most of West's strengths as a scorer (the wet jumper and the ability to get to the rim)...and Nash has also shown the ability to scale up that scoring in the postseason when called upon...and oh, by the way, Nash is also one of the best floor generals that the game has seen...why would I prefer West to him?

I went through a similar thought process when comparing Dirk to West, and felt that Dirk came out better. I find myself leaning to a similar conclusion with TMac, though I admit to TMac hesitance that I still have to work through. Earlier, I did the same with both Oscar and Robinson. And I'm right on the verge of coming to the same conclusion with Ewing.

And here's the thing...I could be wrong. Maybe West really was that good. But those championing West aren't making the case to me that I am. Like I said, I started the previous thought process from what I consider to be the best pro-West evidence that I've seen of his impact. And obviously I incorporated what I consider to be West's strengths in as I was doing it. And yes, I know he's the Logo and a legend. So what I need from West supporters isn't doubling down on these things that I've already laid out...I don't need "yeah, but he's Jerry fricken WEST!". I needed you to tell me why a player like West at his peak would be better for my team than a big man that could anchor a historic defense and still give me an efficient upper-20s scoring as long as there is a good perimeter threat on the squad as well. I needed you to convince me why getting high-efficiency scoring/spacing from a 6-5 wing was better than getting it from a 7-0 power forward. I needed for you to convince me that West's combo of scoring and generalship was better than what I could get from TMac, who in that one magical year seemed the much more explosive scorer with excellent wing generalship of his own in a better physical package. I needed to see that, but instead I see complaints about the voting process and disbelief that other players are being voted in above West. And that just isn't doing anything to convince me.

[drza]

Vote: 1990 Ewing

[therealbig3]

So I guess Ewing goes in now. Even though I disagree, he was a great player, and he would have gone soon enough for me anyway.

drza, I know that you have been consistent with taking two-way bigs over wings...but why Ewing over K. Malone? I understand Ewing seemed to be a traditional defensive anchor in a way Malone wasn't...but Malone was a very good, maybe even elite, man defender. He was someone who could co-anchor a great defense, or perhaps more accurately, be a "2nd option" on defense. And we know how good he was offensively.

[Doctor MJ]

'90 Ewing takes it.

[ardee]

I had changed my vote to '68 West well before time!!

I even posted another notice that I had!

It's 4 vs 4 for Ewing vs. West, this becomes IRV, Ewing has not won yet.

[Dr Positivity]

I had changed my vote to '68 West well before time!!

I even posted another notice that I had!

It's 4 vs 4 for Ewing vs. West, this becomes IRV, Ewing has not won yet.

It was 4-4 including your vote, then drza just voted for Ewing on his page (he hadn't been counted in the previous one). So final vote is 5-4 Ewing

[JordansBulls]

Kinda surprised Ewing went ahead of Moses Malone here. Also surprised Ewing went ahead of Malone and Barkley.

[ElGee]

Also if you read this thread, the people voting Ewing are NOT mentioning Robinson as their reason why. Like at all.

Here is the chronology...

Before Page 7 of the #19 thread Patrick Ewing was only posted about by fatal, in a non-comparative stylistic post (a very good one) bringing mention to his 1990 season (in response to bastillon's Ewing questions on pg3 of the 18 thread?). That's quoted here, in the aforementioned place, when drza votes Patrick Ewing (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1204752&start=90#p33190290)

Drza just blankly states that Ewing was better than Robinson in the PS. Unless he's referring to box score numbers, I don't see any basis for such a claim, nor do I see him argue it. He just states it. There are a bunch of box score stats thrown out about 1990, and the fact that his Knicks team upset Boston, but I'm confused as to how people are entering this project with such bravado and dogma and they don't know this basic, relatively recent season and information. (I personally loved fatal's first post on the topic not because it “reminded” me of Patrick Ewing, but because his argument about Ewing's defense being better due to mobility despite a weaker team result is a compelling one a prima facie.) To not know basic information and then have a knee-jerk reaction midstream doesn't exactly come across as knowledgeable to a reader. If we want to just catalog info, that's one thing, but then obviously people's attitudes should be waaaaaaaaay different than they were. Know what I mean?

Btw, at that point in the thread bastillon then responds by saying he isn't sold on Ewing's offense. Then C-Ize Me says he sees Ewing and Robinson neck and neck (C-Ize ultimately votes for T-Mac.) drza then says “And it certainly does appear that in this peak season his offense was at worst comparable to Robinson.” But he also says this is based on the box score.

Now, let's stop and put something in perspective. I have Robinson 14th and Ewing closer to 25th or 30th based essentially ENTIRELY on defense. The idea that these living in the same ballpark defensively then necessitates them being voted closely together is flawed. It's not different than "Magic and Oscar are QB's, they must be close." A point SRS different on defense still makes Robinson a GOAT-level 3-pt era defender, whereas Ewing was never really in a position to legitimately challenge guys like Eaton, Robinson and Dream for DPOY during his best years. Now, can I go to the 2012 RGM Peaks project and get information about that?

Not really. What I'm petitioning to the group is that this project should be the REFERENCE point for such information and debate. Simple point of fact that was never mentioned, Ewing's DPOY voting looks like this, keeping in mind the dude played in the No. 1 media market: (this was never mentioned in the "Ewing's defense *SEEMS* similar to Rob's" meme):

Ewing DPOY votes
1989 6th (2 votes)
1990 5th (1 vote)
1991 7th (1 vote)
1992 0 votes (incidentally Karl Malone had 1 vote)
1993 1 vote (Starks and Oakley each had 1 vote)
1994 0 votes (Oakley 2 votes)

This is just for reference – we all know DPOY votes can be all over the place. But considering them as equal a “ballpark” as drza's box stats on offense, the case doesn't look good for Ewing anywhere near Robinson's or Duncan's levels. In short: a point or point and a half difference in “goodness” on defense between two equals on offense will be the difference between being 14th on this list and 30th.

That people suddenly just started saying “woah, I forgot about healthier Ewing! He must be like Robinson!” on the 7th page of the 19th thread is, well, the only word I can think of is a bit embarrassing because (1) forgetting about something you consider so important is a sign of lack of knowledge/preparedness and (2) there was no case made to show, indeed, that Ewing was as good defensively as peak Admiral. (btw, drza asks about Ewing's defense, and IIRC UBF was really the only one trying to tackle that.)

Then we get more stuff like this (C-Ize me, pg 10) “I like the Ewing vote be because he should definetly be close to Drob.” But no explanation why they are close. THEN fatal makes a post about Ewing's defense by posting a highlight from a 1990 game. David Stern says “I really see no reason to put him so much behind DRob whose profile and impact on the game are very close to Ewing's.”

Then bastillon says he's voting Ewing because Nash has no traction and Moses does. (Stern again later says he has Nash and CP3 over Ewing, but didn't vote for them earlier.) C-Ize Me says he has Ewing behind peak Mac and West.

This is all the Ewing discussion in the entire project before my post you quoted.

the same holds true for Oscar. ElGee keeps repeating this nonsense story (I'm sorry but it is what it is) as if Oscar was voted in without any arguments:

(Full arguments here): viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1204752&start=165#p33195715

What's “nonsense” is the way you talk to people on this board some time. C'mon. Only shortly before this comment you said

that was one of the worst comments you've ever made on realGM.

for a guy who seems to champion consistency and large samples. wow, another one with double standards ?

These are ad hominems and they are useless. Address the substance, not the person, and not only will people have more FUN, but the results of the communication will be more PRODUCTIVE.

Now I very clearly stated that Oscar Robertson's arguments to anyone reading this can be summarized by 3 points:

I've re-read the thread, and the Oscar arguments are "QB PG's are valuable," "Oscar had nice in/outs in Milwaukee," "Oscar 63 had a good series against Boston."

You are welcome to re-read all your quotes you've posted, because there isn't one that falls outside the scope of those 3 points.

Bastillon has made the point that people should have made stronger counter-points. Well, I've stated specifically in the No. 6 thread there was no specific counter-point to latch on to with Kareem. I've stated specifically about Oscar's 3 points in the 14 thread, which were addressed, and the Ewing "left-field" vote which started with 36 hours left in the voting makes it kind of tricky to go after arguments that seem already referentially handled in the first place (eg box score stats, good PS series, like Robinson, etc.) Furthermore, for Oscar there was a counter-argument specific to simply his most-identified contemporary, West.

-"Oscar has big in.outs." So does West; viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1203154&start=105#p33118170
-Oscar's offenses. What about West's? viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1203370&start=30#p33123744
-And I personally answered your trade point here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1203370&start=90#p33127707

Only no one really rebutted the counter-points about West: In/Out, Offensive heights/role, etc. Furthermore, I didn't even see in depth discussion of that series or Oscar's play, just simply his raw box averages and marveling at how he did it against the vaunted Boston defense. Does anyone even know the rumors around Auerbach leaving? Or that the series was played in 1-1-1-1 format? Or that Cincy couldn't play at home and played at Xavier because the circus was in town? Or was it even mentioned that the Celtics destroyed Cincy in their wins and lost close games ala Atlanta v Boston in 2008?

Much of this is useless to future readers of this project but hopefully it's a quick self-check for those participating in this project.

Most people are learning, or at the least have an explanation that validates the project, because the votes that go against the status quo are the votes supported with the most discussion and analysis.

That's not the case in the project though. There have been spots of good discussion, but this is really the 3rd or 4th time when it feels like the inmates have taken over the asylum.

The poster who made the "asylum" remark, ElGee, he made it AFTER you and other posters were specifically accusing him of intellectual dishonesty over a series of posts and thread. Chronology is kind of important there. It was a hot headed thing for him to say, but people tend to get hot headed when their integrity is under attack.

I also understand that people tend to get hot headed when they feel like they are being condescended to, and that ElGee certainly makes people feel that way, as do I.

It actually wasn't hot-headed, it was quite calculated.

(1) This is obviously a well-known phrase and I'm clearly using it as metaphor
(2) There are obviously terrible posters on this site. If you think you are one and you want to improve, do something about it.
(3) The metaphor was intended to reflect the weird trends that have been going on from swells that reflect poorly on the project. If that comment was targeted at anyone specifically (other than a general comment about the weird patterns) it was at the thoughtful posters, who should look at themselves more closely in this process (myself included). That's all I will say about that without mentioning specific names.

You can say that this wasn't a good way to make my point, but no one's been listening to my points for a while. I think to many I'm simply coming across as bitter. Last year I was vocal because I thought people were simply inconsistent with their own criteria. This didn't really "bother" me, but I voiced it. (Note: Again, this has nothing to do with their assessment of a basketball player, but how their brain processes all the info.) This project I've been labeled by some as a "complainer," which is unfortunate since I provided a lot of information at the outset that I'm pretty sure no one had. I provided a lot of detailed posts. Many of my posts were never even responded to, as was the case with West (and now some Karl Malone points). I could care less about the voting results as long as they are substantiated with good information and thoughtful discussion.

I'd like IRV and I think the vote, and maybe the discussion would be better. I'd even like a ballot with borda count. I'd like at least 3 days of discussion. But these things aren't feasible. I think it IS realistic for people to be more friendly. I think it is possible for people to more thoughtful. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask posters, "guys, are you putting in the required time/effort/thought in this project if you are doing stuff like forgetting seasons?" (drza is a great poster. He constantly admits he's handicapped by, you know, making new life. But in turn he isn't dogmatic and abrasive.)

That people have responded so negatively to me trying to illuminate these issues tells me I'm going about this very wrong. It reminds me of John Kerry once listing all the mishaps of the Bush first term in a debate, to which Bush simply responded "all this guy has is a litany of complaints." I think the discussion in the current (#22) thread has been to the standard of what this project is capable of, and if I find time to contribute again I hope I can match that.

[ElGee]

I'll add something about Ewing that piqued my curiosity regarding the 1990 season. Charles Oakley missed 21 games. In those games, the Knicks were a -1.2 SRS team and a +1.8 defensive team. Their DREB% declined 1.8%.

In the 10 PS games, they were a +6.1 team on defense. They gave up 117 pts/100.

You can argue that Sky Walker is not a good defender. You can argue Stu Jackson is not a good defensive coach. But at some point if Ewing is supposed to be a more "mobile" 4 bpg defensive juggernaut, it HAS to prevent results like these in likelihood. Personally, I credit Ewing for a good deal of quality of defense, even pre-Riley...but I can't look at those results and think Olajuwon or Robinson wouldn't have done far better defensively with that team.

The counter argument is that Riley built GOAT-level defenses around his rim protection. But to anyone who watched those teams day in and day out, a few things were clear:

1. Riley was challenging the rules ("if they foul on every play, they can't call it every time")
2. Ewing was surrounded by hard-nosed defensive players (eg Oakley AND Starks earning DPOY votes)
3. The Knicks clearly went with a defensive strategy -- half court team, Charles Smith (6-10) at the other forward next to Oakley, etc.

This is not to say I think they achieve the same defense with ANY good defensive center -- Ewing was a good anchor. But I do think it's clear other factors were contributing to the Riley Knicks defensive success (and basically all contemporary observers felt this way.) Fatal's question of whether 90 Ewing could have done better than 93 Ewing is a provoking one, but I'm not entirely sure the answer is a discernible "yes" (eg add at least 2-4 wins more on average) based on the role Ewing played near the hoop for the Riley Knicks. (90 Ewing may have been more mobile, but I don't think he had the awareness to always put that to good use. I'd trust older Knicks fans assessment of his early defensive BBIQ over mine though.)

[bastillon]

Now I very clearly stated that Oscar Robertson's arguments to anyone reading this can be summarized by 3 points:

I've re-read the thread, and the Oscar arguments are "QB PG's are valuable," "Oscar had nice in/outs in Milwaukee," "Oscar 63 had a good series against Boston."

You are welcome to re-read all your quotes you've posted, because there isn't one that falls outside the scope of those 3 points.

Bastillon has made the point that people should have made stronger counter-points. Well, I've stated specifically in the No. 6 thread there was no specific counter-point to latch on to with Kareem. I've stated specifically about Oscar's 3 points in the 14 thread, which were addressed, and the Ewing "left-field" vote which started with 36 hours left in the voting makes it kind of tricky to go after arguments that seem already referentially handled in the first place (eg box score stats, good PS series, like Robinson, etc.) Furthermore, for Oscar there was a counter-argument specific to simply his most-identified contemporary, West.

-"Oscar has big in.outs." So does West; viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1203154&start=105#p33118170
-Oscar's offenses. What about West's? viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1203370&start=30#p33123744
-And I personally answered your trade point here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1203370&start=90#p33127707

Only no one really rebutted the counter-points about West: In/Out, Offensive heights/role, etc. Furthermore, I didn't even see in depth discussion of that series or Oscar's play, just simply his raw box averages and marveling at how he did it against the vaunted Boston defense. Does anyone even know the rumors around Auerbach leaving? Or that the series was played in 1-1-1-1 format? Or that Cincy couldn't play at home and played at Xavier because the circus was in town? Or was it even mentioned that the Celtics destroyed Cincy in their wins and lost close games ala Atlanta v Boston in 2008?

Much of this is useless to future readers of this project but hopefully it's a quick self-check for those participating in this project.

I saw that quote with "Oscar had a good series". I thought it was ridiculously biased. voters didn't merely think Oscar had a "good" series, it was statistically speaking one of the best series of all-time, West never matched those numbers. I love how you completely dismissed DS quotes about West vs Oscar comparison vs Celtics (both in 63 and 63 vs 68). you're doing it all the time. unless you start responding to the arguments that already have been made, I don't know what you want to achieve. rumours about Auerbach leaving ? 1-1-1-1 format ? how does that diminish what Oscar was doing ? you're willing to just overlook missing 30 games for West but Oscar dominating against top defense of all-time can be shoved aside because there were rumours about Auerbach leaving. your bias has no limits.

Here is the chronology...

as you've been absent for last couple of threads, I won't even respond to that narrative you've created and instead point you to thread which actually has entire Ewing discussion viewtopic.php?p=33197296#p33197296

[bastillon]

Simple point of fact that was never mentioned, Ewing's DPOY voting looks like this, keeping in mind the dude played in the No. 1 media market: (this was never mentioned in the "Ewing's defense *SEEMS* similar to Rob's" meme):

Ewing DPOY votes
1989 6th (2 votes)
1990 5th (1 vote)
1991 7th (1 vote)
1992 0 votes (incidentally Karl Malone had 1 vote)
1993 1 vote (Starks and Oakley each had 1 vote)
1994 0 votes (Oakley 2 votes)

This is just for reference – we all know DPOY votes can be all over the place. But considering them as equal a “ballpark” as drza's box stats on offense, the case doesn't look good for Ewing anywhere near Robinson's or Duncan's levels. In short: a point or point and a half difference in “goodness” on defense between two equals on offense will be the difference between being 14th on this list and 30th.

That people suddenly just started saying “woah, I forgot about healthier Ewing! He must be like Robinson!” on the 7th page of the 19th thread is, well, the only word I can think of is a bit embarrassing because (1) forgetting about something you consider so important is a sign of lack of knowledge/preparedness and (2) there was no case made to show, indeed, that Ewing was as good defensively as peak Admiral. (btw, drza asks about Ewing's defense, and IIRC UBF was really the only one trying to tackle that.)

Then we get more stuff like this (C-Ize me, pg 10) “I like the Ewing vote be because he should definetly be close to Drob.” But no explanation why they are close. THEN fatal makes a post about Ewing's defense by posting a highlight from a 1990 game. David Stern says “I really see no reason to put him so much behind DRob whose profile and impact on the game are very close to Ewing's.”

I'll add something about Ewing that piqued my curiosity regarding the 1990 season. Charles Oakley missed 21 games. In those games, the Knicks were a -1.2 SRS team and a +1.8 defensive team. Their DREB% declined 1.8%.

In the 10 PS games, they were a +6.1 team on defense. They gave up 117 pts/100.

You can argue that Sky Walker is not a good defender. You can argue Stu Jackson is not a good defensive coach. But at some point if Ewing is supposed to be a more "mobile" 4 bpg defensive juggernaut, it HAS to prevent results like these in likelihood. Personally, I credit Ewing for a good deal of quality of defense, even pre-Riley...but I can't look at those results and think Olajuwon or Robinson wouldn't have done far better defensively with that team.

The counter argument is that Riley built GOAT-level defenses around his rim protection. But to anyone who watched those teams day in and day out, a few things were clear:

1. Riley was challenging the rules ("if they foul on every play, they can't call it every time")
2. Ewing was surrounded by hard-nosed defensive players (eg Oakley AND Starks earning DPOY votes)
3. The Knicks clearly went with a defensive strategy -- half court team, Charles Smith (6-10) at the other forward next to Oakley, etc.

This is not to say I think they achieve the same defense with ANY good defensive center -- Ewing was a good anchor. But I do think it's clear other factors were contributing to the Riley Knicks defensive success (and basically all contemporary observers felt this way.) Fatal's question of whether 90 Ewing could have done better than 93 Ewing is a provoking one, but I'm not entirely sure the answer is a discernible "yes" (eg add at least 2-4 wins more on average) based on the role Ewing played near the hoop for the Riley Knicks. (90 Ewing may have been more mobile, but I don't think he had the awareness to always put that to good use. I'd trust older Knicks fans assessment of his early defensive BBIQ over mine though.)

so your argument vs Ewing is reputation ? because I'm not willing to trust those DPOY votes when there's such a big tangible impact Ewing was making when he wasn't playing. the question about Ewing was never his defense. he was supposed to be the next Bill Russell coming out of college. in his 86-87 missed games Ewing made a huge defensive impact. he was also making huge defensive impact later on. meanwhile he was anchoring some of the best defensive teams of all-time. I won't shove that aside just because media thought Starks deserved more DPOY votes than Ewing. I think 7 foot shotblocking center who was heart and soul of the Knicks somehow had a bigger defensive impact than 6'3 SG mostly dedicated to man defense.